[OT] The Internet (that Ben says does not exist) and Net Neutrality

[Ted Roche]

On May 21, 2006, at 4:30 PM, Ben Scott wrote:

> On 5/21/06, Ted Roche <tedroche at tedroche.com> wrote:
>> Isn't it time to recognize that a company selling "internet access"
>> ought to be offering some standardized service, or at least some
>> baseline ...
>
>  I point you to previous postings about unintended consequences and
> such.  I also ask, what should this "standard" be, and who should set
> it?

Both good questions.

Until 1989, you could buy "spring water" in a nearby state and have  
no idea what was in the bottle. Some guys were bottling city water in  
Lowell and selling it as spring water. The state surveyed what was  
being sold and discovered some of the water wasn't even particularly  
healthy. Through public hearings, input from industry and consumer  
groups and interminable committee and public meetings, it determined  
what "spring water" was and what standards ought to be applied to it.

We're fortunate that electric utilities "standardize" on 120 VAC, 60  
Hz at least in the US and don't offer "enhanced versions" of that  
instead. We get multiple TV stations from competing networks because  
they all adhere to the NTSC (Never The Same Color) standard --  
there's one that proves points for both sides!

It's outlandish statements like the chairman of AT&T complaining that  
Google was using AT&T's pipes for free that I find disturbing.  
There's already toll booths at the ends of the Internet but now folks  
want to put some in the middle as well. It's in their interest to  
make as much money for their investors as they can, but if they've  
planted themselves between the consumers and the providers (and most  
of us are both) we've given them too strong a negotiating position.

A telephone company blocked a competing services traffic on their  
internet services and was only shot down because as a telephone  
company they fell under different (FCC) rules than the cable and  
other internet providers.

It has been a "Wild West" until now and I think we need to establish  
some sort of fair playing field. AT&T thinks so, too, but their idea  
of fair is that they can do whatever they want with their captive  
audience.

>> Are or should internet providers be "common carriers?"
>
>  My understanding is that, currently, there is no widespread
> consideration of most ISPs as common carriers.
>
>  I do think that most ISPs should have common carrier status, with
> all the rights and obligations that entails.

I'd like to learn what those are, if you or others on the board have  
some more insights. I put the words in quotes because I am not sure  
of the exact definition and its implications.

>  However, I also point out that common carriers still generally have
> the right to charge whatever they want for the services they provide,
> so the common carrier thing is mostly a red herring.
>
>> Can thedecision be "left to the marketplace" when cable companies get
>> exclusive monopolies on service ...
>
>  I again reiterate my position that if there is a lack of competition
> due to an artificially granted monopoly, the solution is to get rid of
> the monopoly, and not try to work with something which is inherently
> broken.

I apologize for making you reiterate (I know how much you hate that)  
but I guess I missed some of the earlier conversations.

I think you're right that we don't fix monopolies by regulating them  
as much as eliminating them.

I brought the subject back up because I was curious why everyone was  
spending so much money on it at the moment. Is it just a slow news  
week, or does some real decision hang in the balance?

Ted Roche
Ted Roche & Associates, LLC
http://www.tedroche.com